Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
Sign in to follow this  
Gordon Shumway

BANNED! Again...

Recommended Posts


For instance, in response to the Air Force’s request for dismissal of the protest underlying this reconsideration request, Latvian Connection filed a 28-page statement containing dozens of excerpts, tables, computer screenshots, and pictures, interspersed with commentary (often derogatory) from the protester. See Response at 1-28. The statement is presented in a confusing array of text sizes, fonts, highlighting, and varying margins, rendering it unintelligible. Id. The response comprised 5 emails with nearly 30 attachments and included: (1) a 2010 notice of intent by the Air Force to award a sole-source contract for mail porter services; (2) Latvian Connection’s 2010 GAO protest of the same; (3) a 2010 complaint filed by Latvian Connection with the Air Force’s OIG against the contracting officer for proposing the sole-source award; (4) a May 2017 Department of Justice press release announcing a defense contractor’s agreement to resolve allegations that the contractor overcharged the United States; (5) a 2014 memorandum prepared by the Commander of the U.S. Air Force’s 386th Expeditionary Contracting Squadron at Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, documenting the unannounced and unescorted access by the chief executive officer (CEO) of Latvian Connection and his subsequent removal from the installation; (6) a June 2017 RFQ for desktop computers and a quotation for same; and (7) several pictures of current and former Supreme Court justices, scattered throughout excerpts from the pleadings, transcript of oral arguments, the Court’s opinion in Kingdomware Technologies v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969, 195 L. Ed. 2d 334 (2016), and Latvian Connection’s commentary on the case. See id., Emails & Attachs.

None of these items was relevant to addressing the timeliness of the protest or otherwise showed that Latvian Connection was an interested party. See also Latvian Connection, LLC, B-413442, supra, at 2 (“In response to the dismissal request, Latvian Connection submitted 25 pages of excerpts cut and pasted from a variety of documents, none of which addresses the agency’s contentions.”). In fact, nothing in the hundreds of pages of documents that Latvian Connection filed in response to the dismissal request in the underlying protest addressed or disputed the fact that Latvian Connection had actual knowledge of its bases of protest over 1 month before it filed the protest. See generally Response, Emails & Attachs.

I would be more curious, but I had the unfortunate experience of reading similarly unintelligible posts during Latvian's brief stint on WIFCON...:wacko: 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...